Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

I personally thought it was a tie, but right now I'll give the edge to Kerry. Bush looked as if he was scared of the arguements Kerry gave. One deciding factor that's making me favor Kerry right now is when Kerry spoke of the Iran sanctions and Bush tried to shift the blame to someone else and it is not his fault.

I don't like that in a President, makes him seem weak. I don't like people that try to shift blame on someone else. As leader, accept all responsiblility, doesn't matter if it wasn't his fault, he could have easily justified the sanction saying some crap like "it was important to put sanctions on Iran, for our operations in Iraq to go smoothly." he doesn't even need to explain. Just some gibberish and he's fine, not blaming other people

But, I'll leave it at that, cause since this is a political debate as of now, this thread will go bye, bye. So I'm not even gonna bother saying more. I simply had to counter your blind support of a raving lunantic.

*spit take*

Wow! I didn't think we'd get as harsh an anti-Kerry opinion as that! That's very interesting.

If we keep it to who we thought won and a little about why, this thread oughta do fine. Thannx for your 2 cents!

Er, I don't think anyone "won", and don't forget this is just the first of three. I only watched the first 45 minutes, but it seemed to me that kerry got a lot of softball questions. On the offensive kerry seemed to do very well, and he had some nice combacks, but he stumbled a bit when put on the defensive. Bush appeared to bumble a bit, mispronunciations, pauses, ect. I think Bush some strong points, but then he would say something stupid like "Its hard work!."

Of course Kerry brought up vietnam (wasnt that a given) and Bush mentioned the "flip flopping." Nothing really new. I am really puzzled why there is such venomous anti bush agression. You don't have have to like or agree with him, but saying stuff like "pwned his monkey looking ass" or "HES ST00PID" just seems childish.

Anyway, I look at it this way, Bush is the evil I know, Kerry is the evil I dont know. Both don't care about you. IMO american's political parties= A democrat would bulldoze his grandmother's house for a vote, and a republican would bulldoze his grandmother's house for a monetary profit.

Er, I don't think anyone "won", and don't forget this is just the first of three. I only watched the first 45 minutes, but it seemed to me that kerry got a lot of softball questions. On the offensive kerry seemed to do very well, and he had some nice combacks, but he stumbled a bit when put on the defensive. Bush appeared to bumble a bit, mispronunciations, pauses, ect. I think Bush some strong points, but then he would say something stupid like "Its hard work!."

Of course Kerry brought up vietnam (wasnt that a given) and Bush mentioned the "flip flopping." Nothing really new. I am really puzzled why there is such venomous anti bush agression. You don't have have to like or agree with him, but saying stuff like "pwned his monkey looking ass" or "HES ST00PID" just seems childish.

Anyway, I look at it this way, Bush is the evil I know, Kerry is the evil I dont know. Both don't care about you. IMO american's political parties= A democrat would bulldoze his grandmother's house for a vote, and a republican would bulldoze his grandmother's house for a monetary profit.

And of course, when I call George W. Bush 'monkey a$$,' I mean it in the most childish and immature context possible. ^__^ My pleasure.

Heh, my friend just summerized the debate up "One guy lies, one guy doesn't have a plan."

That's clearly wrong; both lie, one has a dubious plan, and the other has none.

Anyway, Kerry did bring up some good points.
1> to the iraqi people, it must look like we have every intention of establishing a permament military presence in iraq.
I hadn't even thought of this before, but it does seem to be true. If we announce that we intend to have all of our troops home in 4 years, and will start pulling them out as soon as possible, much of the support for the militants will dry up. Of course that alone won't solve anything, but it would make recruitment harder for those people.

2> Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before we invaded.
This is true, and seems obvious to a lot of people, but there are still a great number out there who believe saddam was working with al qaeda on the 9-11 attacks. Cheney still insists that there were connections between the iraqi government and al qaeda.

3>We should have sent US troops after bin laden.
I can understand why we used mainly afgani forces to deal with the taliban itself. we did not want the afgani people to see this as a foreign invasion, but instead as foreign assistance for an afgani faction. I agree with that, but we should have had a large force in afganistan to deal with al qaeda. The afgani people would have understood that we were assisting in their war, because foreigners, who had attacked us first, were in their country supporting the people who were oppressing them.

Bush really had no good points. He kept saying kerry flip floped in the issues and the country needed a leader who would hold firm on his position.
To that, I would just like to post a quote I read the other day.

"The biggest issue this election is something called flip-flopping, and all candidates are accused of doing it. A strong leader is expected to maintain steadfast resolve in his opinion even if the environment changes or he gets new information. In any other context, that would be considered the first sign of a brain tumor. When presidents do it, it's called leadership, and frankly, we can't get enough of it."

I don't know enough about politics, but Bush isn't a good speaker.
He kept stuttering and losing his thoughts, it seemed.
Also, he seemed angry, at some of Kerry's comments, etc.
He didn't really seem to have a respectable attitude.

That's clearly wrong; both lie, one has a dubious plan, and the other has none.

Anyway, Kerry did bring up some good points.
1> to the iraqi people, it must look like we have every intention of establishing a permament military presence in iraq.
I hadn't even thought of this before, but it does seem to be true. If we announce that we intend to have all of our troops home in 4 years, and will start pulling them out as soon as possible, much of the support for the militants will dry up. Of course that alone won't solve anything, but it would make recruitment harder for those people.

2> Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before we invaded.
This is true, and seems obvious to a lot of people, but there are still a great number out there who believe saddam was working with al qaeda on the 9-11 attacks. Cheney still insists that there were connections between the iraqi government and al qaeda.

3>We should have sent US troops after bin laden.
I can understand why we used mainly afgani forces to deal with the taliban itself. we did not want the afgani people to see this as a foreign invasion, but instead as foreign assistance for an afgani faction. I agree with that, but we should have had a large force in afganistan to deal with al qaeda. The afgani people would have understood that we were assisting in their war, because foreigners, who had attacked us first, were in their country supporting the people who were oppressing them.

Bush really had no good points. He kept saying kerry flip floped in the issues and the country needed a leader who would hold firm on his position.
To that, I would just like to post a quote I read the other day.

"The biggest issue this election is something called flip-flopping, and all candidates are accused of doing it. A strong leader is expected to maintain steadfast resolve in his opinion even if the environment changes or he gets new information. In any other context, that would be considered the first sign of a brain tumor. When presidents do it, it's called leadership, and frankly, we can't get enough of it."

That's clearly wrong; both lie, one has a dubious plan, and the other has none.

Anyway, Kerry did bring up some good points.
1> to the iraqi people, it must look like we have every intention of establishing a permament military presence in iraq.
I hadn't even thought of this before, but it does seem to be true. If we announce that we intend to have all of our troops home in 4 years, and will start pulling them out as soon as possible, much of the support for the militants will dry up. Of course that alone won't solve anything, but it would make recruitment harder for those people.

2> Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before we invaded.
This is true, and seems obvious to a lot of people, but there are still a great number out there who believe saddam was working with al qaeda on the 9-11 attacks. Cheney still insists that there were connections between the iraqi government and al qaeda.

3>We should have sent US troops after bin laden.
I can understand why we used mainly afgani forces to deal with the taliban itself. we did not want the afgani people to see this as a foreign invasion, but instead as foreign assistance for an afgani faction. I agree with that, but we should have had a large force in afganistan to deal with al qaeda. The afgani people would have understood that we were assisting in their war, because foreigners, who had attacked us first, were in their country supporting the people who were oppressing them.

Bush really had no good points. He kept saying kerry flip floped in the issues and the country needed a leader who would hold firm on his position.
To that, I would just like to post a quote I read the other day.

"The biggest issue this election is something called flip-flopping, and all candidates are accused of doing it. A strong leader is expected to maintain steadfast resolve in his opinion even if the environment changes or he gets new information. In any other context, that would be considered the first sign of a brain tumor. When presidents do it, it's called leadership, and frankly, we can't get enough of it."

Heh, I actually do like your summery better than my friend's.

I would like to add I thought Bush had a good point when (sadly repeatdly saying) "We can't have a leader of a war who thinks its 'wrong time wrong place...'." ect... (Kind of showed how kerry really doesnt have a stance on the Iraq war. He voted for war, but not in this way?! But no this war is "wrong"...) My brain is freezing. Anyway, I still think Bush had a few good points, but butchered them by harping on the "flip flop" issue.

Wow, I think I am more tired than I thought. Deffending bush, wow. Yeah, Kerry won round 1, its official.

YAY PABS leans to the left, lol all this time I thought you were a right wing freak comin from texas and all

I like lines like " I care for all life"- Bush

lol if you care for all life then how come you put so many ppl to death in Texas, weren't those precious lives not worthy enough (Pabs correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there something in Texas law that says you can't have a public defender if you are convicted of murder?. How bout the innocent children he slays everyday in Iraq, ours and theirs, putin people in position of death doesn't seem to hold up to that statement.

Kerry did a good job on explaining himself I thought

He had one stance and that is, He supports a change in Iraq, but he supports it only if the condition that the president promise was true. Strong coalition, Last restort (which bush didn't have)

if you want to speak a bout a flip floper I remember a U.S President appointed saying something like "We're not into nation building"....hmmm

Don't give me the coalition of the willing crap, Kerry also made a good point here. 90% of the cost 90 % of the casualty is not a coalition. And the supplemental bill one he read and liked said it would give $$ to troops in Iraq the other draft said almost the same cept it adds bonuses $_$ for oil executive in iraq (i.e Bush and Cheney's best buds) so he didn't vote for it. (I voted for the bill before I voted against it.....now you know the reason why)

So all in all I think Kerry did a better job than Bush

anywho if you're of voting age, REGISTER NOW AND VOTE!!! REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATS GO REGISTER AND PRACTICE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!!!!

Some of you have brought up and mentioned some good points already, so I won't reiterate what have been said (or I'm just too lazy to type up a support for my opinion! XD). Overall I liked Kerry's performance more than Bush's, but I don't think it was as one-sided as Pabs has suggested.

It seemed Kerry had the upperhand. Bush seemed fairly intimidated, by the fact he was stuttering like crazy, and pausing for nearly 5 second periods! That is just sad as someone who is supposed to represent OUR country.

Kerry also seemed a lot more focused and intelligent in his comments, while Bush seemed to trail his thoughts in many directions, and waste a lot of his time by saying retarded things like "Its hard work!" like Thelaughingman pointed out.

It was amusing, to say the least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sokar

I think Bush hurt himself with so much focus on flip flopping, you can only use that so many times before it loses effect. It seemed every time Bush spoke he either emphasized his own resoluteness or kerry's flip flopping.

I have to agree completely. On the other hand it annoyed me every time kerry had to mention he was in the military or in vietnam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sokar

Also, I find it funny that people assume someone from Texas automatically supports Bush.

IMO american's political parties= A democrat would bulldoze his grandmother's house for a vote, and a republican would bulldoze his grandmother's house for a monetary profit.

Isn't that all political parties

Back on Topic: I think Kerry did better than Bush. He made some very good arguments(previously mentioned), and his attacks made Bush scrowl a lot, which is not a good thing as it makes Bush look weak and vulnerable. I think Bush hurt himself with so much focus on flip flopping, you can only use that so many times before it loses effect. It seemed every time Bush spoke he either emphasized his own resoluteness or kerry's flip flopping.

Also, I find it funny that people assume someone from Texas automatically supports Bush.

No matter how many times I see the debate or other people I know see the debate, I can't argue that kerry didn't win. He really showed most of the american people that he is a man who can take lead, and help fix all the problems that bush has created.

Both did well, at least bush wasnt caught offgaurd on any issues (whish is good because they knew the questions in advance ). Just when your opinion of bush cant get any lower though, bush kept bringing up Kerry voted for war... but never mentioned that what he voted for wasn't what happened. And did you love his response on the question on if he would preemptively go to war again, he danced around it and didnt give a real answer

Of course bush did imply he wasnt going to reinstate the draft so I guess thats good if he does get in somehow.

I couldn't see it cause i had work the following morning at 8:30am >_< (Im in europe)
I'd would have liked to watch it. Even though im not american, i'd vote for Kerry if i could =P
atleast he can speak full sentences.